Why would God create people he knew would go to hell?

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

That makes my choices not truly free, but only seemingly free.

No.

Go back to your movie example. Does your knowledge of ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ imply that Spielberg wasn’t free to film it however he wished?

In the analogy… Spielberg would maybe be… some angel?
God creates things, the angels write scripts and direct the movie… while god knows all.
It’s weird…

 

[AIPM1615]

Personally, I think biology is deterministic. Our brains are biological in nature, so their workings should also be deterministic. The brain is super complex, no doubt, so, in our traditionally simplistic approaches, the mind that seemingly arises from brain activity seems disconnected from it - no matter how much neurologists tell us and show us how very connected the mind and the brain truly are… they always feel disconnected.

This disconnect, I think, must have given rise to the concept of the soul… and free choice.

Before I give my thoughts on this, please note that I’m a skeptic in every sense of the word. Maybe an “agnostic Catholic” if that makes any sense. This is merely my interpretation of what the Church, through Aristotelian metaphysics, understands about the mind.

Opponents of dualism criticize it as being a “soul in the gaps” argument. “We don’t know why we have intellect, so it must be a Deus ex machina.” That sort of thing. Ceteris paribus, it’s a valid critique, one that I - and Thomas Aquinas - agree with. But this concept is a folkish straw man. The soul is not the mind. Obviously, very basic neuroscience shows that our ability to think, recall memories, etc is contingent on a working brain. People with brain damage (like my dear best friend, God rest him) are incapable of this to varying degrees.

Neuron firing and electrical pulses throughout brain demonstrate that there are thoughts, but not what those thoughts are. If you hook me up to a computer, you can very well see that I’m thinking, what part of the brain is being used, and to what extent… but the computer will not produce a tree, the 2018 Subaru Impreza, the pythagorean theorem, or whatever else I am conceiving. My intellect is thus contingent on, but functions indirectly to and apart from, the material cause (the brain and bodily senses).

“Great!” You might say. “Our brains are more complex than other critters, and science doesn’t quite understand them just yet. But eventually it will render intellect a non-issue.”

The fact is, it won’t, because it can’t. The intellect, our exhibition of abstract thought and reason, is a demonstrably immaterial thing. I’m only scratching the surface here, and not really wanting to spend my whole day typing a metaphysical textbook. What’s important to note is that the Church does not teach that the soul is our mind. It is not an invisible ghostly ectoplasm that escapes us on our deathbed. The soul is, to put it most simply, the form of the human. It’s not a matter of semantics, but a major philosophical misunderstanding that most materialists and naturalists are guilty of.

If you’d like to understand how/why one believes in the immortality of the soul, I suggest you begin to look at the basic teachings of Aristotle and work up from there. You don’t have to agree - I’m not totally sure if I do - just understand what the other side is actually arguing.

 

[goout]

Why would God create people he knew would go to hell? I think this thing is absurd…

You think that is absurd?

Why do human beings have children?

1. We know our children will die someday, and that is the ultimate injustice, yet we have children while knowing this.
   2)Our children will suffer at some point, yet we still have children while knowing they will suffer.

Why do we have children?

 

[Aloysium]

no matter how much neurologists tell us and show us how very connected the mind and the brain truly are… they always feel disconnected

You are taking analogies that are useful in describing the structure of reality as being reality itself.

The brain and the mind are one in the person.

If I say, there is a pressure on your backside you will feel the chair pressing on you. Areas of the brain that involve the directing of attention have unblocked the sensory (name removed by moderator)ut from that area to the cortex. It was unnecessary data for your functioning until the idea entered your mind, which being one with the body opened the connection. If every sensation were active, we wouldn’t be able to function. As the brain does what it does, we as a whole person, feel, perceive and do stuff.

Understanding the person as body and mind can get us stuck trying to imagine how they relate. They do so in the reality of the person, sitting here at the monitor.

Thinking about matter as chunks of stuff helps in understanding the building blocks of the world. When thinking about constructing things, fixing a car or operating on someone’s brain, the idea of processes is more important. When we try to understand what it does, matter can be better understood as information.

What is informed is being. The existence of things is not as a quality they posses, but is their fundamental reality. The particular qualities that matter has can be thought of as information coming into being. Such stuff as quarks, bosons and leptons would be like basic information given to the entity that is an atom, which exists as a whole in itself and can be organized into larger units. Proteins are organic molecules whose configuration, the orientation of electrochemical forces, provides for the structure or physiology of the cell. So they inform the cell, which is a higher level of being, whole in itself, doing what it does. We as collections of cells are informed by their processes to be what we are, beings who are whole as persons. Matter in this light is like the data for the spirit as computer.

The matter in our bodies does different things in reality, a lot of it is silent doing (hormones, muscles, bones, digestive system and so on) reflecting our existence within the physical world of time and space. These processes allow us to interact with the world in such a manner that we incorporate matter that is outside to develop, grow and maintain our bodies. The nervous system may be though of as the processing of sensory, emotional, word and thought data.

We are relational beings, playing out the drama that is our lives as a self. There exists a psychological structure to our lives in addition to the physical.

What we have are two dimensions of one thing - the person.

All this is subsumed by the over-arching spiritual dimension, the being-ness of the moment, our capacity to connect to what is other. The knower-knowing-the-known, grounded in the Ground that is the Triune Godhead.

The mind does not move the body as the body does not move the mind. Each is an aspect of the person, whom they affect and consequently impact on one another.

 

[Gorgias]

In the analogy… Spielberg would maybe be… some angel?

It’s not a perfect analogy.

The idea is simply that your knowledge of the movie does not imply that you forced it to happen.

 

[AIPM1615]

What we have are two dimensions of one thing - the person.

If you follow the materialist’s line of thought to its natural end–eliminative materialism–there is but one dimension of nothing - a series of biological processes. No mind, no thought. Nada. The problem is, this is a logical fallacy. The assertion of eliminative materialism is itself an exercise of intellect (although to call it “intelligent” might be a stretch), something that a mere sequence of interacting carbon atoms is incapable of making.

Now, most materialists do reject this fringe argument for what it is: an absurdity. But given their position, there’s really no rational basis for doing so. If one wants to assume the intellect can be reduced to biological functions, why not go a step further and say it doesn’t exist at all? That “we” don’t exist?

Self-defeating.

 

[benjamin1973]

That’s how analogies work. The rat analogy is to show that freedom means little if you are set on a path with a known destination. You could also argue that we don’t have tails, or that we live longer than rats, but that would be equally irrelevant to the analogy.

As for fate: you are now telling me what God can or can’t “see.” This seems dangerous. I would assume that God can see all of Creation eternally, since not to see would mean that He is limited in at least one way.

 

[pocaracas]

The fact is, it won’t, because it can’t. The intellect, our exhibition of abstract thought and reason, is a demonstrably immaterial thing.

Agreed.

What’s important to note is that the Church does not teach that the soul is our mind. It is not an invisible ghostly ectoplasm that escapes us on our deathbed. The soul is, to put it most simply, the form of the human. It’s not a matter of semantics, but a major philosophical misunderstanding that most materialists and naturalists are guilty of.

The form of the human…
How is that different from intellect, personality (demonstrably tied to the brain), and emotions (demonstrably tied to the brain and hormones)?

If you’d like to understand how/why one believes in the immortality of the soul, I suggest you begin to look at the basic teachings of Aristotle and work up from there. You don’t have to agree - I’m not totally sure if I do - just understand what the other side is actually arguing.

I have no problem in accepting an immortal soul. The thing I have a problem accepting is the soul itself. I seriously doubt there is such a thing, hence, I see the heaven and hell post-life destinations for that soul as equally unbelievable.

 

[pocaracas]

We are relational beings, playing out the drama that is our lives as a self. There exists a psychological structure to our lives in addition to the physical.

What we have are two dimensions of one thing - the person.

I’m with you, so far…

All this is subsumed by the over-arching spiritual dimension, the being-ness of the moment, our capacity to connect to what is other. The knower-knowing-the-known, grounded in the Ground that is the Triune Godhead.

Aaaand you lost me!
Why do you say all that with such certainty, as if it’s really like that, when you know very well that you are simply believing it to be so… you don’t know it to be so. You believe.

The mind does not move the body as the body does not move the mind. Each is an aspect of the person, whom they affect and consequently impact on one another.

I’m with you, again!

@Gorgias

pocaracas:

In the analogy… Spielberg would maybe be… some angel?

It’s not a perfect analogy.

The idea is simply that your knowledge of the movie does not imply that you forced it to happen.

Correct! I agree.
I’m not saying that god is forcing the movie that is our Universe to happen… I’m saying that the fact that he knows what happens at each time renders each event fixed, like predestined.

 

[AIPM1615]

The form of the human…

How is that different from intellect, personality (demonstrably tied to the brain), and emotions (demonstrably tied to the brain and hormones)?

I know where you’re coming from, because I myself asked that same question. For awhile I thought it was a bunch of wishful thinking, indeed a “gaps” argument by desperate theologians. But no. Soul refers to the nature of a living thing, not a ghost-like entity that we often see depicted in art (like called it before, the “folkish” understanding). Per Aristotle, there is a hierarchy of soul: nutritive, sensory, and rational.

• nutritive is the soul (nature) of plants - taking in nutrients, developing, reproducing
• sensory has the above properties, plus the ability to sense the world around it
• rational is a combination of nutritive and sensory, plus the distinctly human powers of intellect/will (grasping abstract concepts, reasoning on them, and taking a course of action on these bases)

These categories aren’t just nice arbitrary categories. They have their foundation in causation - namely, the material (what things are made of), formal (the “pattern,” think oaks and maples as trees, or you and I as humans), efficient (something that brings about change), and final (the end to which something is ordered).

I think that it’s reasonable to admit a “soul” exists, that is, the nature of humans as nutritive, sensory, and rational beings. Would you agree with that? All sentimental and folklorish notions aside?

@Pocaracas, I suggest reading “The Last Superstition” by Dr. Ed Feser, a leading Aristotelian philosopher and convert to Catholicism from atheism. It’s his answer to Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” so it was written in a rather … unsympathetic … tone. Feser’s snarkiness and wit aside, I think his explanation of metaphysics is absolutely phenomenal. You’d like it. If nothing else, it will help you develop a deeper understanding of what the Church (and classical philosophy as a whole) teaches regarding the existence of the soul.

Best regards!
Spencer

 

[pocaracas]

Thanks for the suggestion of the book. I personally found Dawkins a bit too aggressive, so I can understand how others would write an unsympathetic reply!
(already found it online and added to my future reads)

As for the 3 categories you put there, I don’t see how they can’t just arise from deterministic biological interactions…

 

[AIPM1615]

Thanks for the suggestion of the book. I personally found Dawkins a bit too aggressive, so I can understand how others would write an unsympathetic reply!

(already found it online and added to my future reads)

As for the 3 categories you put there, I don’t see how they can’t just arise from deterministic biological interactions…

Yeah I wasn’t particularly impressed with “The God Delusion” for that reason. While it appeals to people’s emotions by making them feel stupid (i.e. “I’m mentally ill for believing there’s an omnipotent imaginary friend in the clouds”), when you get rid of the loaded language, it’s a juvenile argument.

Feser hits back twice as hard, but mainly because his position has substance and not just aggression. It’s a good read whether you come to agree with the classic philosophy or not. I’d move it to the front of my reading list if I were you

As for the last deterministic biology part… read the book and find out.

With that said… I’m going to enjoy my Saturday night. Take care all!
Spencer

 

[Aloysium]

If one wants to assume the intellect can be reduced to biological functions, why not go a step further and say it doesn’t exist at all? That “we” don’t exist?

Self-defeating.

The science of human biology is a reflection of our relational nature, exercising the capacity to name and understand things. Through mathematics, physics and chemistry we can get an understanding of the physical structure of the universe in which we participate. Paradoxically, an objective world is envisioned, and that vision is a subjective phenomenon. Materialism appears where self-reflection is lacking and in the place of a truth there is illusion, a disconnect from the reality of existence. Speaking only of material components, without reference to the living person, who here is reading, we are reduced us to dust - a virtual death. Self-annihilating.

 

[AlNg]

In a way, we are just a tiny part of the Universe doing what the Universe does… physics

I am not sure that physics can successfully describe all human activities such as love of a spouse, or a sense of responsibility toward your family and community, or an urge to participate in non-paying creative activities. Further the study of complex dynamical systems shows that the whole can be greater than the sum of its physical parts.

 

[Gorgias]

The rat analogy is to show that freedom means little if you are set on a path with a known destination.

Ahh… but the analogy fails rather spectacularly if you fail to note that you, as a human, make rational decisions, whereas a rat does not.

You could also argue that we don’t have tails, or that we live longer than rats, but that would be equally irrelevant to the analogy.

Ahh, but if you – as a human – had a tail, it wouldn’t defuse the rebuttal that rat choices =/= human choices.

I would assume that God can see all of Creation eternally, since not to see would mean that He is limited in at least one way.

You’re missing the point I’m making. To say that God “sees” means that He learns. Moreover, it means He learns by sensory experience. That is untrue. God simply knows. Without limitation (or mediation).

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not saying that god is forcing the movie that is our Universe to happen… I’m saying that the fact that he knows what happens at each time renders each event fixed, like predestined.

Except that you’re asserting that His knowledge forces the events.

 

[AlNg]

Except that you’re asserting that His knowledge forces the events.

The problem is that it is already known what you will do. So 2000 years ago, it was known that you would choose strawberry ice cream today at 2:30 PM. It was known then that you would do that. If so, then what alternative do you have at 2:30 PM? Can you change your mind and choose vanilla? No, because it was already written down in the book of the mind of God, more than 2000 years ago, that you would choose strawberry and there is nothing you can do about that. You have no alternative except to choose strawberry.

 

[benjamin1973]

You’re missing the point I’m making. To say that God “sees” means that He learns. Moreover, it means He learns by sensory experience. That is untrue. God simply knows. Without limitation (or mediation).

No, “seeing” means being able to observe something, while “learning” means not knowing something and then knowing it. If God sees your future, it means that he is able to observe your future, not that he is learning about your future. Do you regard God as unable to observe your future?

 

[benjamin1973]

If God created the Universe, and knows the future, then the future is immalleable. If this were not so, then that would mean that God’s knowledge of the future is imperfect.

Either God knows every step of the future, in which case we cannot change the future, or He doesn’t, in which case God does not know some things. You really don’t get to have your caked and eat it, too.

Now, from a pragmatic point of view, you might as well adopt the position that free will is real and the future is malleable. You will live your life as such, make decisions as such, and then go to Heaven. And then discover that ever single decision you made was already written in the Lord’s eternal datebook, and things could not have turned out other than they did.

 

[Gorgias]

The problem is that it is already known what you will do. So 2000 years ago, it was known that you would choose strawberry ice cream today at 2:30 PM. It was known then that you would do that.

No. That’s an error in logic.

To say “already known” implies that it was known in time – in the past, as it were. So, no… it’s not the fact that, 2000 years ago, I would choose ice cream for breakfast.

Rather, outside the context of time, God knows. Not within that temporal framework, but outside of it. So, there’s no implication of determinism within the framework of time; consequently, I’m not tied into a strawberry ice cream breakfast. I get to freely choose. It’s not that “I have no alternatives”; it’s that I will choose what I wish, and without ‘coercion’ or ‘force’ from God.